Obama: Don't Hire Hillary
Anyone who has not heard that Senator Hillary Clinton is being considered for Secretary of State is definitely living under a rock. Every media station and pundit is weighing in on this decision. They say it is "restorative." It is a "gesture" from the Obama camp "healing" campaign wounds. "Everybody" agrees she should be chosen. I say if Obama wants to mend scars he should send her flowers.
As a professor of global affairs and an international security advisor to both the U.S. military and President of Afghanistan, I do not agree with the masses - again. Appointing Senator Clinton is a bad idea. If the President-elect is truly for change he needs someone who supports that and so far Clinton has held true to business as usual.
This is not a discussion about Clinton's experience. She has plenty. It is about the differences between these two individuals, the differences between their stated foreign policy and Obama's promise for change.
Clinton is a member of the establishment. She has transformed herself into one of the best politicians in recent memory. The result was a very formidable bid for the Presidency, but let's face it: she did not win. America elected Obama and change.
The repeated debates between these two candidates clearly showed one area where she and Obama differed tremendously. That area is foreign policy.
She supported the Iraq war, he is against it. Clinton was unapologetic about voting for the war despite pleas from her own constituency to admit it was a mistake. Alternatively, she took a hard stance and further disagreed with Obama's idea of withdrawal.
Under no circumstances does Clinton want to speak with Iran. Obama, on the other hand, stated that he felt speaking to Iran was a requirement for getting them past their nuclear weapons ambitions. Her policy ironically is to use ours on them if they did not submit to US demands.
Further, Clinton has said nothing of changing policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan, two issues that were central to Obama's foreign policy platform. Nor has she commented on how to move beyond either war toward a more sustainable peace.
She has shown through her own statements that she is definitely more hawkish than he is. I wonder if she can stand down when he says so.
Appointing Clinton Secretary of State is not what the US needs especially when it is trying to repair its relationships in the world, end two wars and get the Middle East peace process back on track.
With Clinton America will be back to implementing the same international policies we see today. A policy that is pentagon heavy and diplomatically light. A policy that is internally fractured and divisive instead of comprehensive and cohesive. A policy that has not learned to look beyond dominance and war.
If Obama is serious about turning America around, he should not be considering another Clintonite at all. He should be considering others. Someone like Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel would be my pick and a much wiser choice.
Hagel has spoken out against the war, supported many of Obama's initiatives in the Senate, as well as during his campaign, and, as a Republican, would help bridge between party lines.
Hagel also understands that the US is in danger of putting too much focus on the pentagon and losing America's prided civilian leadership in the foreign policy. Moreover, he understands our self-interest is tied to the rest of the world and the US can no longer afford to ignore this. Hagel will work to improve the reputation of this country throughout the world. He would represent the change that Obama has promised.
The New York Times said Clinton is unsure about taking the job of Secretary of State because she "likes being her own boss." As a New Yorker, I would have to agree. Clinton would serve everyone better by staying in the Senate. More importantly, if Obama is really serious about change, he too would be much better off if he left her there.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I think Chuck Hagel would be a much better selection than Hillary. He's been on the Senate Foreign relations commitee for awhile & would be firm but reasonable to Russia,Iran etc.
A real CHANGE would be putting an honest, centirist Republican in state.
I don't recall Hagel campaigning anywhere for Obama during the election. He wasn't even bold enough to give Obama an endorsement. Hillary went out of her way to help Obama during the campaign. She campaigned tirelessly for him in the critical days leading up to the election and I will be forever grateful to her for that.
If Obama had appointed Hagel over Hillary, as I much as I like his centrism and what not, that would have been it for me. I don't see any rational behind that. Hillary is almost overqualified for the job. There is simply no reason not to appoint her. Considering the historic nature of her campaign too I think it is an incredible gesture towards the millions of women across this country who felt disappointed and unappreciated when Hillary lost the nomination.
Again, Obama has proven that he is wiser than all of us. He is always one step ahead of the game.
The chatter about her potential nomination for the past weeks is just a taste of what to expect.
Every time that she goes somewhere in the world it will be like a media event. This isn't Hollywood, it's Washington, D.C.
I don't believe Hiliary is a good choice. Infact I agree that she is a bad choice and she will undermine the goal of the Obama administration. In addition is way too partisan to be progressive.
You know... initially I was against the Clinton for Secretary of State, and I was against the "spare the rod" treatment for Joe Lieberman but here's my take on what Obama's done (consequen
You can't just "change" out or replace all the people who do business in Washington, you need to "change" the attitudes of the people who have been doing business in Washington. Hillary Clinton is POWERFUL. Her husband is POWERFUL. USE THEM! If Obama can get the Clintons to not just support his ideas, but to adopt them as their own, WOW! because the Clintons are POWERFUL. If Lieberman really comes back into the democratic fold, WOW!.. one step closer to a filabuster proof majority.
I think Obama is smarter than all of us. Alot of people are criticizing Obama for leveraging many of the former Clinton administration. This is not a bad thing. Obama ran the smartest campaign in history with the smartest team of campaign staff and managers ever assembled. But they are all super intelligent nobodies (no real power). Had you ever heard of Plouffe and Axelrod before? Now Obama is assembling a power team to go along with his super intelligent team. The most powerful democrats in this country all served in the Clinton administration (including the Clintons).
Wouldn't it be nice as a nation to see what happens when super intelligence is married with real power.
Cont.
You see.. it's not just enough to be smart, you have to have access. The Clintons have REAL POWER and they have access.
For instance, if Hillary Clinton had wanted Obama to lose the election, she could have merely not supported Obama after the primaries. Not that she needed to support McCain, but all she would have had to say is that I was running against Obama because I do not agree with or support his policies and Obama would have lost. What did Obama do? He used the Clintons on his campaign trail to the presidency.
The old adage is "real power lies behind the throne". Even now, when Bill or Hillary Clinton speaks, people stop and listen, and that is inspite of personal disdain for them.
The Clintons have REAL POWER. USE IT!
Watching Obama is like playing a chess grandmaster. Obama is calling for you to resign the game because he has you checkmated in 12 moves.. but you can only see 5 moves ahead.
Well reasoned post BCubedReg. You make a powerful point.
If the talking heads on CNN last night are correct, the Clinton nomination will be a done deal after Thanksgiving. What a shame. Sure, it's possible that Obama can rein in Hillary's own idealogical vision of how things *should* be done. And he can perhaps sidestep Hillary's built-in conflicts of interest (so long as he's aware of them), spawned from nearly 20 years of Clinton palm-greasing and favor-currying, both domestically and internationally. He can perhaps install the necessary controls to ensure *future* transparency from both Bill and Hillary.
And Obama may even be able to (if he's ever-so-careful, so as not to incite that classic Clinton umbrage & retaliation) convince Hillary to present HIS prescribed brand of diplomacy, rather than the Clinton-Bush brand, which is built around gifting corrupt leaders with *wink-wink* of money, arms and covert armies, so that we may overthrow their governments and install corrupt U.S. puppet regimes, who will turn a blind eye to the U.S.-spons
Perhaps Obama can do all of this, even as it's the least promising thing to emerge, so far, from his vision --- this idea that Bill or Hillary would change their stripes for the common good.
Hillary should decline the position. No matter how well she does, her critics are already pre-loaded to go after her in any way possible causing a distraction. She'll be used as a scapegoat if anything doesn't work out. She can't win. If she were to be successful as SoS, the attention given to her would really annoy his supporters. An all around bad idea. She'll have more freedom as the Senator from New York. The chatter about her potential nomination for the past weeks is just a taste of what to expect.
I am a loyal Obama supporter and I am not afraid to say that HILLARY IS THE BEST CHOICE. Now let me remind you of one thing you don't seem to appreciate: Obama was elected by the entire United States not just a handful of liberals like me and you who post on this site. He built a powerful coalition of Democrats, Independents and Republicans including those Hillary voters who came out very strong for him on November 4th and helped him make history. Obama has made it clear that he will not rule like Bush so if that's what you want, sorry to disappoint you. He is not going to reward his friends alone with important posts. He is very shrewd in making his decisions. He understands that Bush has left the US in a very, very deep hole and that it is going take people with real experience to help dig us out and bring about the change that's needed. You guys are too selfish. I'm just glad that we finally have a President who is willing to put the interest of the country first.
I don't recall that Hagel is a "friend" of Obama--just the best person for the job. As for Hillary--well, from husbands to wars to foreign policy, she just gets it wrong all the time!
I really was for Obama, but this Hillary thing is WRONG, so wrong. What is he thinking?? Is he??
She is supposed to represent this country. I really don't want to be represented by her. The Clintons will be viceroys this country does not need. I think John Kerry would be an excellent choice. He has what it takes to make the US look good again and we don't have to worry about him to look hawkisch either. He knows more then one language, which is extremely helpful in this position and he has lived abroad already as a child, due to his fathers jobs. Give Hillary something, but NOT this.
Hagel would have been a great pick. That is probably the only one that would have been better. Hilary appears to be the one he wants for the job. He seems to have become comfortable with working with her after the end of the general election. He does not seem to adhere to the almost hysterical reaction to her being picked as Secretary of State. The anti-Clinton battalion need to have some trust in the judgement of the man they just made President of the US.
Keep your friends close.
Keep Hillary closer.
Don't do it Obama...sh
Obama should not let either Clinton within spitting distance of the White House. If he appoints
Mrs Clinton as Secretary of State he will destroy the hopes of millions of people all over the world
who believed that his Presidency would usher in a new era of Peace and Justice. If he feels that
for political reasons he must placate Mrs Clinton with some high office we can only hope that he offers her something that keeps her well away from the International political stage.
Pam,London
I completely agree no Hillary Clinton for SOS. It is her view, her hawkishness, her comments made during the campaign, and lets not forget Bill Clinton was the one that started the Rendition program, Bush just put it on Steroids. Lets also not forget that Bill Clinton bombed Iraq and put extreme sanctions on Iraq, before Bush went in and destroyed the Country.
Bad idea period and I will be very disappointed if he gives to her. I am to happy with some of the appointments already, but then we are not sure if they are coming from the Obama Camp or not.
all the change talk was to give americans hope in dreaming,while all along he is jst the same as the rest,how can he talk to iran,if clinton is secretary of state and she refuses to talk to iran.
i guess obama tricked the whole world
welcome to another 4 years of bush
They (Obama and Clinton) have both resolutely stated that they are in agreement on most issues. Get over the skirmishes in the primary -- and consider that two strong leaders, working together, can have an enormous impact here in the US and throughout the world. He is acknowledging her intellect, experience, and abilities. These two are both strong willed, highly intelligent, and sensitive to the needs and feelings of others -- whether they be citizens of this nation or the world. And, like John McCain they know how to put country first. More importantly, they have demonstrated they know when to put country first. So far, the Obama/Biden administration is looking mighty fine.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
